SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Dawgs By Nature

Recap of Monday's Holmgren / Mangini Presser

I meant to get this up yesterday, as I'm sure by now that many of you have already digested what Mike Holmgren and Eric Mangini stated in Monday's press conference that addressed the trading of Brady Quinn and Kamerion Wimbley. If you'd like to read the full transcript, you may do so here. Otherwise, continue on to see some select quotes and comments.

Star-divide

For simplicity, I am mostly going to provide the quotations made by Holmgren. We all know that what he has to say is typically far more interesting than Mangini's reserved manners. Naturally, then, I'll start off with something from Mangini:

Eric Mangini

(On why he is confident in Jake Delhomme) - "I’ve known Jake a long time. I was the DB coach in New England at the Super Bowl against Carolina. I felt pretty good going into the first half, one of the lowest scoring Super Bowls and I can tell you that last 30 minutes were part of the worst coaching experience I’ve had. The way he lit us up. Then we come back the next year and it’s kind of the same. Over time, he’s been a proven winner. He’s been a consistent winner.

His completion percentage over the years, that’s been consistent as well. I don’t think it’s uncommon for a guy to have a bad year, but when you look at his body of work last year, I know the touchdown to interception ratio, I know what that was and I get that, but there were a lot of good throws on that tape too. There were a lot of winning throws on that tape as well. Guys do go through bad years, but over time, I think as Mike said, he’s been consistent in terms of his level of production and his ability to win games."

Comments: This is what I tried to stress in my article that tried to highlight the positives of signing Delhomme. The Panthers were consistently able to do well under him for the most part. You can attribute that to other areas of the team, but you can't deny that Delhomme played his part. Trying to say that there were a lot of good throws on last year's tape is quite a stretch for optimism though.

Mike Holmgren

(On naming a starter before training camp)- “I would hope or not too long into that we have decided that this is the way we want to go. I know this, Seneca Wallace, who I had in Seattle, will come in and will compete like crazy. You guys will like what you see. He’s a fine player. He can really pass the ball. There are a lot of things you are going to like about Jake as well. He is 35 years old. We understand that, but physically he is really fine. It does kind of beg the question about the future and long term and all of those things. There aren’t many (Brett) Favre’s around that can play until, what is Favre? 45? I don’t know. Because of the moves we made right now, it doesn’t preclude us from continuing to do stuff. I will tell you that too. We have this draft coming up, you know. So we will see.”

(On judging Quinn on 12 starts)- “It was difficult and I’m not sure it’s really fair, to be honest. I’ve said and I meant it when I told you that, 12 games aren’t enough to get a real good feel and certainly Eric has a better feel than I do, having coached him and been around him. That’s the unfortunate part of this. He was here three years and only played in X amount of games and that really isn’t enough. You should have a pretty good idea as a coaching staff, kind of where this is headed, I would think, but it’s not enough. Sometimes you have to make decisions that you think it’s the way to go and we’ll see.”

Comments: The interesting thing for me would be how soon the trigger would be pulled on benching one of these quarterbacks if (or when) they struggle to start the season. The impression that Holmgren gives is that "the guy" will be "the guy," but this isn't the typical situation where I think either one of these quarterbacks will make our team this year (as opposed to breaking it).

Mike Holmgren

(On why the quarterback position is better after trading for a career backup and an aging veteran)- “That doesn’t sound that great (joking). One, the ‘career backup’ played for me so I know him better than any quarterback that has been mentioned in this room. I think he is a potential starter. Yes, he has been a backup, but he has been a backup to a Pro Bowl player. Mark Brunell was a backup for me to Brett Favre and he went to the Pro Bowl. You get into a situation and you are a career backup, but that’s a phrase and I’m not sure exactly what that means sometimes. As far as the ‘aging veteran,’ my own belief is this team needs an aging veteran. They need a guy who’s going to grab everybody by the throat and say follow me through that door. That’s what we need. I don’t look at him as an aging veteran. I look at him as the leader that I wanted in the locker room if in fact he is the starter. We are using a different lens to look at those two guys, I guess, is the best way to put that.”

 

(On if he ever remember another team having to deal with an older quarterback joining a new team who had a good career then a bad year)- “Personally, I’ve never had to deal with anything quite that specific with his age and so on. I think this, when I was able to sit down and we talked extensively about his year. Quite honestly I said, ‘Hey. I’ve watched you play and played against you a long time. What the heck happened?’ He was very candid, very open. I suspect he will be with you, when you ask him those questions. Once we had that discussion, I really felt like this will work. If there are physical reasons why, now you probably don’t do it. You can’t overcome those. The reasons why this happened, I think we have a fine coach, a fine staff and I have every confidence they are going to make that work and I really have a lot of confidence in this guy. Again, let me just say this, how long is Jake going to play? I forget how many years we signed him to. How many years? Who knows? Two? Thanks. So we have two and you can kind of paint the picture yourself what we are going to try to do, but as for right now, this next season, I think we have a great combination.”

 

(On if the quarterback position was stuck here last year)- “I did not. When I watched film of last season, which is what I had to go on. It looked like they were struggling a little. I’ve told you this and I will say it again, when your quarterbacks play kind of the way they played, forget about the reasons why, you can come up with a million reasons why, but when they play the way they played it’s pretty hard to win games in this league. I just felt I wasn’t going to be doing my job if I didn’t attack that situation. It wasn’t just me, I want you to know that. You can ask me all the questions you want and I said this in our first day, Eric, Tom Heckert, there’s a group of five guys that get in there and we bang around pretty good on all these decisions. He’s the coach and I made him a promise when I first got here. I am not going to give him a player he doesn’t want. I’m not going to do that. We have to talk about this stuff. The quarterback thing was very important and that’s kind of how it happened.”

Comments: Looking forward to recapping Delhomme's presser, which I think might be happening today at noon. Also, Holmgren was a little too kind when he said that Quinn and Anderson looked like they were struggling a little last season.

Eric Mangini

(On Peyton Hillis)- “I like Hillis as a tailback. Hillis had 126 yards against us in New York. He had a string of three or four weeks there, before he got hurt late in the season, this was in I think ’08. He had been very productive as a tailback and that’s what he played in college and he got behind two really good draft picks and kind of got lost in the shuffle there. He’s a physical guy. He’s tough with the football in his hands. You could use him as the tailback and (Lawrence) Vickers as the fullback and you get a lot bigger.

You could use him as a fullback with Jerome (Harrison) and both of those guys are really effective catching the ball and even running with the ball, you can give the fullback the ball, not that we gave Lawrence a few bones this year. You can mix him in a lot of different places. He’s returned some kicks. He’s played on special teams. He’s done a lot of good things in a young career. In terms of where we will use him, I’m not sure, but it adds versatility when you try to decide on the 45-man roster to have a fullback that can play tailback and can also do something on (special) teams.”

Comments: Hillis is the type of all-purpose player that really could define the Cleveland Browns (halfback, fullback, special teams, receiver). We'll probably even mix a halfback toss in at some point for him ;)

Mike Holmgren

(On Delhomme being a mentor)- “We talked specifically about that. He is going to have his hands full learning a new offense. Being the player I want him to be and Eric wants him to be. This is not a stop gap. As a quarterback, we want him to win games for us. Not manage the game and all that stuff, but win games for us as the quarterback. That’s his job. When I told him was this, because he has this natural instinct I think. He is a very friendly guy, he is easy to like, with his teammates as well. I said, ‘I want the younger players to just watch you. You don’t have to be anybody but what you are. You don’t have to go overboard to be their teacher. We have coaches, we have good coaches. They are going to coach the team, you play, and they will watch how you do things. That is your mentoring.’ If it goes any farther than that it’s fine, but that’s what I asked him to do.”

Comments: Delhomme's not here to be a Ken Dorsey, and we're not paying him to be a Ken Dorsey. Although he did have Steve Smith to work with in Carolina, he also worked with a lot of young (albeit unsuccessful) receivers, and that should be beneficial in terms of experience in coordinating with them.

Eric Mangini

(On Watson)- “I was there Ben’s rookie year and the year after. Ben has the ability to threaten in the middle of the field. He can really run. He puts pressure on the safeties, which is something you are always looking for from the tight end position. He is good on over routes, the deep overs or seven cuts, things like that. In playing against him in New York, multiple times, he creates issues. You guys probably saw that Buffalo game early in the year last year where he caught the two touchdowns there pretty close to back-to-back.

He’s made some big catches in some big games. I really like the guy. I like all the aspects of him as a worker, as a person. I think his best football is ahead of him. Remember New England had quite a few guys they could throw to. You trying to cover (Randy) Moss and (Wes) Welker and Watson kills you. You try to deal with Watson and one of the other two guys kills you. I am looking for him to kill somebody else now.”

Comments: We're back in the category of "respectability" at the tight end position, and perhaps one could say that we're only behind the Steelers in terms of the TE position in the AFC North. However, mentioning about the Patriots having Moss and Welker to benefit Watson doesn't compare to our situation, where we have the dynamic duo of Massaquoi and Robiskie.

Eric Mangini

(On if he has thought or dreamt about Cribbs and Wallace on the field at the same time)- “I haven’t dreamt about it, but I have thought about it and I think that’d be good. Both guys can throw the ball. Both guys can run with the ball. We may want to run the option. You can do a lot of things with guys like that. It creates problems defensively. Seneca’s primary position is going to be quarterback. That’s where we want him to play, but he’s a competitor and like Josh, he wants to do whatever he can to play football. His primary goal is to get on the field in whatever capacity. You do have to make those decisions if he is the two, how many of those plays are you willing to live with and roll the dice on.”

Comments: Ultimately, the same thing that held Seneca Wallace back from playing regularly at receiver in Seattle will probably hold him back in Cleveland: he's the backup quarterback. If he's the third-stringer, maybe you have the flexibility of inserting him into a few packages at receiver. At No. 2, his focus will be on holding the clipboard and perhaps counseling Delhomme on his experience of the West Coast offense.

0 recs  |  384 comments

Comments

Schefter just tweeted that we resigned Marcus Benard, Blake Costanzo, and Chris Jennings over on espn

http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter

I wonder if that puts Davis’ future with the team in jeopardy.

Hmm RBs are Harrison, Jennings, Davis. Then FBs are Vickers and Hillis.

Jennings could still be cut right?

its possible…or a trade. who knows exactly.

I think we’ll see Hillis as a 3rd dow, short yardage RB, as we saw with Charles Ali, Mangini doesn’t like to carry 2 fullbacks

After reading the above, I think Mangini would love to carry two fullbacks provided they fill different roles. Ali is like a poor man’s VIckers. Hillis is a different, more versatile type of player IMO.

Yeah exactly. Hillis could be Brandon Jacobs with better hands. Oh and he can share the field with Harrison and go run a pass pattern. Don’t even regard him as a fullback, he doesn’t play the same role of Lawrence Vickers whatsoever. Great addition. No need to draft a big runningback now.

If anybody gets cut its gotta be jennings.

That’s quite a sig.

The quote happened here too. Quite a site DBN has turned into.

Hell in a handbasket.

Yeah, two people told me to change my sig to it and one of em got recced 3 times.

hahahahahahaha

Thanks for the recap, I had been looking for this.

I am glad Holmgren is honest when he states" 12 games is really not enough to evaluate Quinn, I guess we will find out" This has been my point about Quinn. I guess we will see.
 It will be interesting to see who the Browns draft.

Patriots having Moss and Welker to benefit Watson doesn’t compare to our situation, where we have the dynamic duo of Massaquoi and Robiskie.

Who is this Robiskie character that you speak of?

His name is Andrew:
http://smumustangs.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/robiskie_andrew00.html

or possibly kyle:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Kyle-Robiskie-92533

btw, when I played with Kyle he was about 5’8" 140, talk about a growth spurt.

he’s the one last year that was over there pouring gatorade for everyone

Sometimes you have to make decisions that you think it’s the way to go and we’ll see.

Been waiting a long time to hear that.

This is not a stop gap.

Umm, liar.

So we will eather trade up to grab Bradford, stay at 7 and see who drops or move up a little and grab Clausen.Eather way a QB will be are first ick IMO.I hate that idea but it looks more that way everyday.With 12 picks this drat for the Browns will be intresting.

I still don’t think they’ll take a QB at 7, unless by some miracle Bradford is there. I think there is no chance of that happening.

Right.

In fact I think it is much more likely we trade up later in the draft, maybe getting into the second round again, and taking a QB. McCoy maybe?

Same.

I think its all a waiting game with Tebow’s stock. Either Holmgren gets antsy and moves back into the second half of the second and takes tebow or waits for him to fall into the third. I’d be nervous as hell though if I wanted the guy because I know jacksonville needs to sell tickets.

I don’t see us taking Tebow.

For one thing, we’d need to move Joe Thomas to Right Tackle, and who wants to do that?

Didn’t you know? He’s relearning how to throw right handed…

i heard the team feels comfortable with joe thomas playing both LT and RT at the same time.

Did you see the ESPN news report on Tebow and who they showed talking to him? Holmegren looked to have a nice talk with Tim :(

Mangini was there as well. And you don’t get a more Mangini-player than Tebow.

ESPN said so? We are screwed!

I must have already rec’d this.

i think between now and the draft, holmgren will try to wheel and deal any way he can to get up and take bradford. i’m sticking with my butch davis gut feeling on this one.

Bradford is going number 1 to the Rams. Out of reach.

aw, but nothing is out of reach for the right price tag. I don’t want to do this, but the statement remains true

Rams aren’t interested in trading down unless blown away.

your absolutely right, it would have to be a blockbuster deal to get them out of #1, however, one could make the case we have enough picks and/or players to pull it off. Clearly though, I hope and pray we don’t do this

I haven’t been following the what the Rams have been saying or leaning towards much at all. I’m just curious why so many people are thinking that it’s pretty much close to written in stone? (I’m not saying I’m skeptical or anything, just haven’t been following close enough.)

Also, what’s this mean for Suh? Second overall, or do some people still have him behind McCoy? Or am I even way more behind here than I thought?

I have good reason to believe Bradford is the pick, but I won’t go further than that. The possibility still exists that some sort of medical evaluation comes out that changes the dynamic, but as of now Bradford is the pick.

I would imagine Suh is a lock at 2, and that makes me think McCoy is a lock at 3.

I would be ok with Bradford, I just don’t want to give up too much for him…

me neither…if he is still there after #3 pick, then maybe we start talking

I don’t mind a QB, just not with our first pick whether we have a shot at Bradford or not.

Analysts are kind of all over the place with this one. Many have the Rams grabbing Suh, but others have them getting Bradford. They have continually passed on QB’s in the past, but I don’t think they will pass on Bradford. They desperately are in need of a franchise QB and someone to pick up the fan base after a dismal year. Suh under many analysts is being shown to get snagged by Tampa Bay at the 3rd spot or by Detroit at #2.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2010.php

Here is walterfootball’s latest mock draft

If, by some miracle, Bradford’s available at seven, hopefully we get great offer to trade down.

Just no Clausen please, don’t know why but just have a bad feeling about him….plus I don’t really think he’s a Mangini type guy either.

no way. if he’s there at 7, we’ll take him.

I would hope so.

Bradford or Clausen, Roger ?

I believe he is speaking of Bradford

Hope so, just have a bad taste in my mouth from ND QBs lately….Plus it seems to me that if Clausen was a diva when he went to ND, then he probably hasn’t changed.

Agree and I really don’t think he is a Mangini “team first” kind of character.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just really don’t want to take a QB in the first round, at least not that early.

Seconded. I’d pass on them both.

If your going based on BPA, then its Bradford at #7. If your going by BPA with a mix of need, then its still Bradford at #7. If you are only looking at BDPA, then it would be Berry or someone of the likes in my eyes

BPA be damned, I don’t want a quarterback with that pick.

Bradford is awesome.

And Couch was the next Elway…

I just really don’t want a QB in the first.

I never liked Couch, but I am sure some felt that way. There really isn’t any correlation between Couch and Bradford. Plenty of first round success stories for QBs.

I don’t think anyone ever said Couch was the next Elway.

We shouldn’t avoid drafting a QB in the first round just because it hasn’t worked out in the past. Bradford is a different player than Couch and Quinn and our scouts and coaches are all different as well. I don’t see any reason for Holmgren and Heckert to be scared of picking a QB in the first round because they had nothing to do with the other two guys. I sure they don’t think those picks are relevant to their evaluations of Bradford. If he’s there and they think he’s worth the pick then they’ll go for it.

exactly. that just leads to problems…like lets say (hypothetically but it won’t happen) Dez Bryant (or maybe golden tate) is somehow available in the 2nd. that would be a steal because those guys would have dropped. do we pass on one of those guys b/c we haven’t been good at drafting receivers in the 2nd?

Also, should we not draft a LB who hasn’t played the 3-4 before? We whiffed on Beau Bell and Whiffed (so far) on veikune. should we avoid a later round pick on a Linebacker?

ON this theory, I totally agree with you brad. if bradford is available and they think he is “the guy” they should draft him, no matter how the team has drafted QBs in the past.

be scared of picking a QB in the first round

We probably shouldn’t be… but I am. I’m sorry, no matter how illogical it may be, I’ve become hesitant to take a QB in the first round especially (and primarily because) when needs are bigger elsewhere and better overall prospects that meet those needs are available.

And right when I’d thought I’d become desensitized to bad drafts, our last one (having worked out) and some new staff has given me faith again. Just not enough to draft a QB over a defensive player, this player also even being the BPA.

The most important thing for me, though, in not liking a QB that early is our bigger needs on defense and the better players there.
Come to think of it, the Couch and Quinn failures have little to do with my stance on taking a QB that early. I mentioned it because Dorn said “Bradford is awesome.” People said Couch was awesome too. That was more about my saying, in my personal opinion, Bradford being “awesome” doesn’t make him better options than Berry or even Haden.

.

If he’s there and they think he’s worth the pick then they’ll go for it.

This much is redundant, however. Of course they’ll take the pick if they want him and he’s there.

now you are just talking about I am assuming, since you say BPA, that this is a situation where both bradford and berry are available.

If berry isn’t available and bradford is, I would take bradford in a heartbeat.

I also have not been hugely high on haden to begin with…so I would probably take bradford over Haden, but berry over bradford.

I mention in the other thread, I prefer Berry OR Haden over Bradford.

well. I disagree.

I am not that huge on haden. He is a reach with that pick anyways, and there are CBs that may be just as good in the 2nd round.

And putting Mack, Steinbach, and Thomas out there alone would be better than the 5OL Couch had when he was physically destroyed.

I’m just saying if we do I’d rather it be Bradford than Clausen…Berry would be a better pick at 7 if we dont trade up…honestly I think it’s basically all a coin flip right now who knows what our situation will be in 2 years….

True, I guess it all depends on the variables that the FO considers for BPA, so who knows.

Me personally, I’d like to see us get Berry

I think the whole “we will take a QB in the first round” crap coming from the Browns is a smokescreen.

I think that this front office is smart enough to know that we need a lot of help in other spots. Keep mentioning that we want a QB and someone will be dumb enough to trade up in front of us for Clausen.

It worked for Sanchez last season.

I don’t want to trade up anywhere for Clausen. I wouldn’t mind trading up a spot or two for Bradford. If we take Tebow at #7, I might instantaneously die.

If we trade up and don’t take Berry over Bradford, I might instantaneously die.

I just want to throw something out there.

What if Berry is on the board at 7, and we don’t pick him?

I’d be fine with it, so long as we take Haden instead.

I probably won’t instantaneously die, but still a quick death just over a somewhat short period of time.

Who would we have picked?

Taylor Mays

/suddenly remembers we’re not the Raiders

For discussions sake, let’s say it was for Haden.

Golan would be pleased, anyone else?

I would definitely “instantaneously die” if we took Haden over Berry.

Haden over Bradford is one thing, Haden over Berry is entirely different!

Haden over Bradford is one thing,

the thing it would be is a steaming turd.

I’d be pissed.

every single cleveland browns fan should wade out into lake erie and ritualistically drown themselves.

The other options are a 4-3 DE (Morgan) a boom or bust OLB (Pierre Paul) or Haden. Haden isn’t the same Mangini guy that Berry is and theres a real possibility of getting McCourty or Kareem Jackson in the second. Berry is easily the best option in my mind.

Tebow at 7 would actually make me consider not watching football ever again.

Same. I would die.

Holmgren isn’t dumb enought to pick Tebow in the first.

Even I wouldn’t take tebow in the first, as badly as I want him to be our QB.

Agree. Seriously Berry is our guy. We are going to get him I really believe that. As for Tebow I definitely think he is a good possibility in the second. But a big reason he is a nice option is because we don’t have to shell out $60 million for him like the rams will for sam bradford.

Wouldn’t one of these QBs give anything to play for Holmgren? If Bradford is the man, couldn’t he make a deal to make contract negotiations easy on Cleveland but hard on any other team? Time for a return of some Bernie Kosar manipulations.

Oh, the Ol’ Supplemental draft trick. Worked like a charm.

Why didn’t he mention trading for Troy Smith?

I saw we just draft everyone from Ohio State from now on.

No thread on this yet so I’ll post here..

“Coming from an offense where Josh Cribbs was the only true threat, Anderson is likely salivating at the chance to play with Arizona’s skill players. If Anderson winds up as the starter, his career could be resurrected throwing to the likes of Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Breaston.”

Not likely..

 I saw this on the O&B Report, he’s salivating because he now has receivers capable of catching the crap that he throws….I’ll be sick if this guy is their starter next year…

….his career could be resurrected throwing to the likes of Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Breaston.

More likely, their careers will head down the toilet with his.

yeah, there’s no way he resurrects anything. he may start, but that’s only becasue leinert has been so busttastic.

Anderson will deffinatly get a chance to prove himself there. And honestly, I hope he does well. He didn’t do anything to the city of cleveland, and nothing to the team. He has always been the same QB, he just had an offense that supported him when he did well, and the right people around him. He did not lay down here and say he wasn’t going to play if they got rid of someone. He didn’t demand any trades when he got benched, he was a team player. He was just upset and pissed, as i think anyone would be, when the crowd cheered because he got hurt.

I guess I don’t wish DA any hard luck, but I’m indifferent to his future. He had every chance here and couldn’t deliver beyond 2007, and his idiotic comments on the way out didn’t do him any favors in my mind. I won’t feel strongly about him regardless of his results with the Cardinals.

I wish him incredibly hard luck. if we don’t deserve a winner, DA doesn’t deserve to do well.

+1
I wished him well up until he became a whiny girl after getting cut.

+1

I completely respect these points of view.

I posted this elsewhere also, but does anybody know how many picks the record is that a specific team had for the draft in any particular year? I was just wondering since we are acquiring picks like they grow in our backyard.

He didn’t do anything to for the city of cleveland, and nothing to for the team.

Now it’s fixed

that was supposed to be under holmes comment above…@#$!

This thread needs to be locked.

I already suggested this to chris.

Please do, and let this be the end of it…

we all seem to have decided we’re done anyway, so goodbye thread!

I wish the racist content was removed first, or the entire post deleted if that’s what’s required.Otherwise I concur and won’t comment here again.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.